| Literature DB >> 34067844 |
Muhammad Umar Aslam Khan1,2,3,4, Wafa Shamsan Al-Arjan5, Mona Saad Binkadem6, Hassan Mehboob7, Adnan Haider8, Mohsin Ali Raza4, Saiful Izwan Abd Razak1,9, Anwarul Hasan10,11, Rashid Amin12.
Abstract
Bone tissue engineering is an advanced field for treatment ofEntities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; biodegradation; cytotoxicity; drug delivery; graphene oxide; hybrid scaffolds; nanocomposite; tissue engineering
Year: 2021 PMID: 34067844 PMCID: PMC8156135 DOI: 10.3390/nano11051319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Scheme 1The proposed chemical schematic reaction mechanism presenting the synthesis of polymeric nanocomposite via free radical polymerization reaction and among the organic (GG, AAc, GO, and NN-MBA) and inorganic materials (nHAp and nTiO2).
Figure 1(A) Synthesis of polymeric matrix of nanocomposite through free radical polymerization. (B) Fabrication of porous scaffold via freeze-drying technique. (C) Silver sulfadiazine drug was loaded by a simple dip and dry method.
Figure 2The spectroscopic analysis to determine structural properties of hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds. (A) FTIR spectral profiles to analyze the functional groups. (B) Diffraction spectra to investigate crystalline and amorphous behavior of the hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds.
Figure 3SEM micrographs of the surface of the samples. The inset micrographs show the zoom-in surface of the scaffold samples. The graphs show the EDX spectra of the hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds.
Figure 4The mechanical behavior of hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds has been investigated through (A) stress–strain curve and (B) relation of Young’s modulus and porosity.
The mechanical properties, molar crosslink density, pore size, and porosity of polymeric hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds.
| Sample | Strain (%) | Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Molar Crosslink Density (mol/m3) | Pore Size (μm) | Porosity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 19.77 ± 1.50 | 2.96 ± 1.34 | 39.56 ± 2.14 | 0.0053 | 256.11 ± 1.28 | 79.97 ± 1.32 |
|
| 26.64 ± 2.36 | 5.18 ± 2.60 | 71.43 ± 1.36 | 0.0095 | 195.64 ± 1.64 | 64.23 ± 1.43 |
|
| 29.53 ± 1.90 | 10.68 ± 1.12 | 122.45 ± 2.24 | 0.0164 | 142.17 ± 2.47 | 52.91 ± 2.17 |
|
| 34.89 ± 1.56 | 13.31 ± 2.45 | 300.85 ± 1.90 | 0.0402 | 107.42 ± 1.78 | 44.32 ± 2.14 |
Figure 5(A) Swelling analysis of the hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds in different media (pH 7.4) at 37 °C, (B) degradation of hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds samples in PBS solution (pH 7.4) at 37 °C, and (C) wetting analysis of scaffold samples to determine hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity at room temperature.
Figure 6The drug release profile of all polymeric hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds in PBS solution at 37 °C.
Figure 7Presents the cellular behavior of MC3T3-E1 against different concentrations (0.500, 1.000, 1.500, and 2.000 mg/mL) of polymeric hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds at different time intervals (24, 48, and 72 h) to (A) determine cell viability and (B) optical density under standard in vitro conditions.
Figure 8In vitro cell morphology of MC3T3-E1 cells onto the hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds (XPH-1, XPH-2, XPH-3, and XPH-4) at different times (24, 48, and 72 h). The red arrows present the thread-like morphologies of the cells whereas the blue arrows show the mature cylinder-like morphologies of the cell.
Figure 9Presents the SEM analysis of cell culture and adherence for all hybrid nanocomposite scaffolds against MC3T3-E1 after 24, 48, and 72 h and red arrows indicate the culture and adherence of osteoblast cells.